Jump to content

Reasons Not To Consider The Pgf A Hoax (2)


Recommended Posts

I think I've made my point. Extremely clear photos of a creature and people can't discern real from fake. You can see why I avoid blobsquatch threads like the plague. It doesn't take much to hoax someone, just enough to suggest something and their minds take it to where they want to go. Happens every day here.

 

Until a specimen, living or dead is retrieved that looks like Patty you have to consider that it may not be real. A grainy film is just not sufficient evidence despite the heroic efforts to prove so. You can draw as many anatomical geometries and calculate out lens lengths as you want, it's just going to be conjecture. Scientific sounding conjecture but until there is physical evidence to compare the conjecture it's got a certainly level of uncertainty.

 

For the record C, D and E are…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Real.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

I think I've made my point. Extremely clear photos of a creature and people can't discern real from fake. 

 

 

Try putting those creatures in motion, Orygun...and then maybe you'd have a valid point. :)

 

It's also easier to distinguish 'real' from 'fake' when there is something more than just a head, to evaluate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HOLDMYBEER

Try putting those creatures in motion, Orygun...and then maybe you'd have a valid point. :)

 

It's also easier to distinguish 'real' from 'fake' when there is something more than just a head, to evaluate.

Like authentication of the device that took the images and a substantial vetting of backstory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, using a group of modern images, both in subject matter and equipment does not make any sort of meaningful comparison at all. Now get an old kodak movie camera, do a re-enactment using a half dozen suits and one real Sasquatch and or Gorilla's and lets see that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shady characters, road close by, film that looks good in it's simplicity...costume and a hoax in my opinion.  

Scientific evidence says otherwise.

 

Peer reviewed.

 

Peer approved.

I think I've made my point. Extremely clear photos of a creature and people can't discern real from fake. You can see why I avoid blobsquatch threads like the plague. It doesn't take much to hoax someone, just enough to suggest something and their minds take it to where they want to go. Happens every day here.

 

Until a specimen, living or dead is retrieved that looks like Patty you have to consider that it may not be real. A grainy film is just not sufficient evidence despite the heroic efforts to prove so. You can draw as many anatomical geometries and calculate out lens lengths as you want, it's just going to be conjecture. Scientific sounding conjecture but until there is physical evidence to compare the conjecture it's got a certainly level of uncertainty.

 

For the record C, D and E are…

 

 

Real.

 

Your "experiment" is invalid because those images are of suits obviously produced by modern methods, with unstated budgets and unstated constructors.

 

Bill's work reveals that Patty displays all the correct biological signs of being a living creature.  Such a level of detail was not possible AT THE TIME with any creature suit technology that a perpetually broke "cowboy" like Patterson would have had access to.

 

*ETA Looks like several people beat me to it...And yes, Orygun you CAN prove it to any objective person willing to think critically about the evidence on proffer.

 

If it's as easy as you seem to think to disprove Bill's PEER REVIEWED and PEER APPROVED work, then do it.  We await your proffer...

Edited by Mulder
Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

For the record C, D and E are…

 

Real.

 

Umm.......yeah, we got that.  And if you look above, the guesses to the question were about 95% accurate (without cheating).  The question of real or fake in regard to the PGf has been about a million times more complicated than that.  Giving skeptics a benefit of the doubt: the score leans towards the PGf being real about 999,999 to 1.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor

Many of those who claim or think the PGF is a hoax feel this gives them moral cover.  That is, if one thinks the PGF is a suit and hoax then it is just having a little fun fooling those who are already being fooled.  Thus, it's not lying to weave a story about a suit or "I am the man in the suit"  They would never claim something like, "I was there and saw the guy get shot in the Bank Robbery"  But, if one thinks the PGF is a hoax then it is OK to further hoax the people they think they are fooling.

 

I see the interview with Bob H or the Morris Suit guy who continue to change their stories.  We are to forget this al just let them tell a story to us.  They would have not moral problem doing this as they think it is OK to further hoax a hoax.

 

One big reason to consider the PGF real has to do with the weakness of the attempts of the hoaxers to reproduce any PGF and suit.   With stories that keep changing and so on, the position of the skeptic is selectively applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Ben Rivers theory about the PGF, but he is mistaken in thinking the casting a track landscape and location are the same as Roger's PGF trackway footage landscape and location, when they are two distinctive and different locations. Once you understand that the locations are different, the whole "it's proof of a hoax" theory falls apart.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites
xspider1

Yes, Northern Lights, that 'PGf hoax proof' has been discussed and cussed to the Nth degree.  To me, the areas indicated by the blue numbers do not match at all. The only thing I get from thatt blogspot is an example of how many people dismiss the PGf off-hand without really looking at it or even trying to understand it.    

 

castcomparisonclose.jpg

 

Misinformation is worse than no information at all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Ben River's "proof of a hoax" has been thoroughly debunked, but he still thinks he can see what the rest of us can't. Funny that he has practically zero support from his JREF buds on this one. And they back up practically anything anti-PGF. I suspect it's because his proof relies on Roger removing a large debris pile next to the track he's casting, then smoothing it over with some sort of sand Zamboni. Why Roger would have done this is the biggest mystery of all, but Ben is confident he did, otherwise, his proof goes poof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Northern Lights

Actually the reason I brought it up was because the folks on the JREF were thumping their collective chests about how it debunked the PG film.  Now I get to go back there and tussle with them over the validity of it.  Should be fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...